As a stated fact, every person has a distinct personality of their own, yet for centuries, scientists and philosophers have debated for centuries whether this personality stems from the result of nature or nurture. Jean Jacques Rousseau argued that, from the time a person is born, the genes inherited from blood family determines the result of a person’s character, predetermining the personality of one before they enter the world. John Locke, on the other spectrum, debated that when an individual is born, they are given a blank slate and all knowledge and behaviors are gained from observing the exterior world. In Mary Shelley's novel, “Frankenstein,” Shelley takes a clear stance on the nature versus nurture quandary and clearly sides with how …show more content…
Every person the creature interacted with influenced the creature in a negative way. While Victor grew up in a positive environment of love and support, growing to reach his dreams, the creature was raised in a negative environment, causing it to have a negative psychological development since every action the creature carried out was faced with ridicule and hatred. In the end, the creature was pushed towards murder based on the interactions it had with others; the continuously violent and negative receptions the creature faced had a psychological effect, leading it to lash out against others. Nature versus nurture is still a prominent question of today’s society: is a person predestined to become a certain way because of their genetics, or are behaviors gained and learned from the actions and guidance of others? In Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein,” nurture was the main force that decided the end character of each individual. Nurture was what supported Victor, allowing him to follow his dreams, but also destroyed Frankenstein’s creation, leading it to a life of violence and